Health surveillance indicators for diet and physical activity: what is available in European data sets for policy evaluation?

BACKGROUND

Policies targeting diet and physical activity have the potential to improve health and well-being at a population level. However, the impact of these policies in Europe is currently unknown. Based on existing data, as well as on a needs assessment, we derived a catalogue of indicators that can be employed to evaluate such policies. These indicators may also inform the further development and harmonization of surveillance systems.

METHODS

Forty EU experts agreed on a list of key indicators and ranked their priority for future surveillance. We mapped these indicators onto variables provided by ongoing European surveillance systems. Using a Likert scale (well matched, somewhat matched, poorly matched, unmatched), we assessed the suitability of these variables as measures for the indicators.

RESULTS

Key indicators included behaviour outcome indicators relating to diet (n = 72) and physical activity and sedentary behaviour (n = 67) as well as upstream determinants of these behaviours. It was possible to map 72% of diet indicators and 86% of physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators onto at least one variable in an ongoing surveillance system.

CONCLUSIONS

Current monitoring and surveillance systems focus mainly on measuring 'downstream' indicators, while gaps exist in policy and environmental level data in dimensions such as inequality, funding and resources and governance.

Selection of key indicators for European policy monitoring and surveillance for dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour

BACKGROUND

A pan-European approach to evaluate policy impact on health behaviour requires the employment of a consensus set of established and relevant indicators.

METHODS

As part of the Joint Programming Initiative on a Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life, the Policy Evaluation Network PEN identified key indicators of health behaviours and their determinants. These key indicators are already, or have the potential to be, adopted by large European Union surveillance systems for the assessment of policy impact. The iterative selection process included consultations in two rounds via email prior to a 2-days expert workshop. The experts collated a list of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour indicators for European policy monitoring in young and adult populations based on existing frameworks and literature reviews. The expert panel was composed of researchers, policy makers and representatives of major European surveillance systems and related initiatives, as well as, representatives of organisations providing monitoring data, such as the European Commission and Eurostat.

RESULTS

The process provided two lists of key indicators including 37 diet 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for dietary behaviour and their 'determinants'; as well as 32 physical activity 'policy' indicators and 35 indicators for physical activity, sedentary behaviour and their 'determinants'.

CONCLUSION

A total of 139 key indicators related to the individual, the setting and the population level, and suitable for the assessment of dietary behaviour, physical activity and sedentary behaviour were prioritised by policy makers and researchers with the ultimate aim to embed policy evaluation measures in existing surveillance systems across the European Union. In a next step, data sources and suitable instruments will be identified to assess these key indicators.

Practical Research Strategies for Reducing Social and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Obesity

Adult and childhood obesity and related adverse outcomes are most common among racial/ethnic minorities and socio-economically disadvantaged populations in the United States . Research approaches to obesity developed in mainstream populations and deploying new information technologies may exacerbate existing disparities in obesity. Current obesity management and prevention research priorities will not maximally impact this critical problem unless investigators explicitly focus on discovering innovative strategies for preventing and managing obesity in the disadvantaged populations that are most affected. On the basis of our research experience, four key research approaches are needed: (1) elucidating the underlying social forces that lead to disparities; (2) directly involving community members in the development of research questions and research methods; (3) developing flexible strategies that allow tailoring to multiple disadvantaged populations; and (4) building culturally and socio-economically tailored strategies specifically for populations most affected by obesity. Our experience with a community-based longitudinal cohort study and two health center-based clinical trials illustrate these principles as a contrast to traditional research priorities that can inadvertently worsen existing social inequities. If obesity research does not directly address healthcare and health-outcome disparities, it will contribute to their perpetuation.